It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Meaning Behind Jesus Sacrifice.

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 


How so? Oh Lord. Does faith have nothing to do with works? Please enlighten me. I'm not denying your words, I am always open to expansion of my own mind. I have it in my mind what it is I refer to by using these words...perhaps you see something different than I?

Faith has everything to do with works. For if your works do not coincide with your faith then your are blasphemous to God. You don't get promotions or recognition in this world by having "faith" that you are on the right track. You prove it by how you carry out your business.

Again, I like what you said and am not outright disagreeing, just wishing to be enlightened.

If you say that you believe something but do not express it in your actions then you do not truly believe in your heart what your mouth is saying.

If I believe that I can get a promotion at work by working hard and proving myself yet I do nothing to prove myself OR work hard then have I not done just this?

We may be on similar yet opposite plains- I do not believe that an individual is saved MERELY by faith in Christ. I believe that they have to do their best to emulate his path and the one he set forth for us. I am probably wrong in assuming but since none of us (that we know of) are any part of the God-Head. The best we can do is discuss.


I still don't get some of the negative comments- WHY WORSHIP TEH GODS???? I don't know. Why worship money? Why worship clothing? Why worship deceased friends and family? Why worship our jobs? Why worship the government? Why worship political systems and social contracts? These are all we have ever known.. So much for trying to have fun with the unknown.

I love Science. Yet at the same time I don't believe it to be 100% accurate. Why? Mankind is prone to mistakes. Why accept the knowledge of like minded individuals who are of a similar community and are trying to test predictions and theories of our universe? This is FAITH. Seeing Stephen Hawking go from saying that Black Holes exist to no... They are Grey Holes should make you raise your eyebrows.

I'm stubborn in this regard and to certain people ignorant but you will NEVER convince me PERSONALLY...that What the scientific community has told us about the Universe is even 1/100000000000000000000000th of the actual truth. If you believe it like I once did than more power to you. That takes faith so strong that one has to forget what he is actually having faith in to have the faith to accept it. I don't think (IN EITHER CASE) that you are sent to HELL for wrongdoing or being one way or another. But for varying dimensions of a Heaven or even Space.. perhaps there is some sort of a challenge or test to it. Our whole lives are tests, everything within them. We love difficult games and challenging things yet we think that the answers are just plastered throughout the cosmos. Maybe they are. But why does God challenge us? Perhaps we challenge ourselves? It takes a big person to live like Christ (and they don't have to believe in him NECESSARILY to do so..(maybe just?-spitballin)

In short. I love the discussions but at the end of the day, I just hope that everyone finds what makes them happy and content be it science or faith (F*** the term RELIGION) or who knows what else.

The point might be.. if we deny our creator (Big-Bang/God) don't we really deny ourselves? We didn't put ourselves here and then wipe our memory clean and start from scratch ALL BY OURSELVES- that is very VEIN thinking. I like to believe that Christ came- he saw- he saved and one day THEY/WE will CONQUER. With him in Billions of us. Conquer who? That might be part of the CONspiracy.

Matthew 7:24-27

1599 Geneva Bible
24 [a]Whosoever then heareth of me these words, and doeth the same, I will liken him to a wise man, which hath builded his house on a rock:

25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not: for it was grounded on a rock,

26 But whosoever heareth these my words, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which hath builded his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell, and the fall thereof was great.


I know this probably makes no sense. Just keep up the good works everyone-on both sides. Where God is the topic of conversation-So God is. Whether for or against.

If you ever want to test the Words of Christ and what he spoke of in regards to how people would deny him.. just randomly inject him into a conversation..no matter what you believe and see how people react.

Perhaps half of the battle for everyone. Is whether you actually believe anything.. at all.

Peace-Brothers/Sisters of Planet Earth
One-Love
Always
edit on 11-2-2014 by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 






Originally posted by zardust
Yeah man, I'm liking what you're saying. Jesus is the logos, the mediator between the invisible Father and visible man. And we are one in him from the foundation of the world, as John 17 shows.


Thanks.

Yeah, IMO Jesus is kind of like Gods guiding avatar. He’s the Word in the beginning, with God the Father. And all things were created through the Son and the Father.

Hence “let us create man in our own image”. All other sons of God (us), were created spiritually through Jesus and the Father together. Which is why Jesus says in John 14:20, that we will be in Him (Son) and the Father, on that day, we receive the Spirit of God.

Just my opinion though, but there are other verses, which hint towards this idea being true…


- JC


edit on 11-2-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 





IMO the beginning is the point where I was created, from the eternal Father. The Coming into being, before coming into being, is talking about potential past lives, but even all those had a starting point. I believe God creates each individuals persons spirit or consciousness. All the lives you ever lived, is collectively the real you, i.e. your higher self, but your higher self, is not the Father. Just my opinion though.


So if the beginning is where the end is, what does the end signify and what is it the end of?

IMO the beginning of this life was the end of your past life, hence the beginning being where the end is. Life is a continuous flow of information and light, it never ends and never begins, even before and after this incarnation. Those who stand at the beginning also stand at the end, "in the beginning" is also "in the end". How can the end and beginning be the same thing? Because eternity is both the beginning and end, the alpha and omega. Life is eternal, you cannot inherit eternal life if you have a starting point because eternity has no start or end. You had no starting point because even the starting point of this life was the end of another past life.

So you agree that you have had past lives? If so, you weren't created in this incarnation but have had many lives before this one. This is what Jesus means by "came into being before coming into being", even in a past life you came into being before coming into being, and that applies to any previous life you lived back to eternity. No matter how many lives you go back, you came into being before coming into being, which means eternity in either direction, past or future lives.

He is only congratulating those who know that this is not their first life, that this life was not the "start" because the start is where the end of a past life is. This is what reincarnation is, a continuous cycle of life and death for eternity, both forwards and backwards in time.

Your higher self is the Son of God, but you are not separate from your higher self either. Jesus was only one iteration of the Son among many, just as you are only one iteration of your higher self.



The Word being the light of men, is referring to Jesus bringing the truth to men. Light is a metaphor for truth. I think that’s the general Christian interpretation of that verse.


But Christian interpretation is usually mostly wrong or at least only half right. The light of man is the image you see. Do you disagree that the image you see is full of light?


Matthew 6
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!


The single eye Jesus refers to is the image we see, it is sometimes calls the third eye or the mind's eye, it is the image that is created in your brain that gives you vision. Their is one single image that you see, so if you make your eye single, your body shall be full of light.

Like my signature says, "It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see", meaning if you focus on what you see as a whole instead of the individual details within the whole, you will see the light and image of the invisible Spirit. You are it and it is you.

The image you see is full of light. If you do not recognize the light that you see, then that light is darkness or ignorance.



But from Genesis, there is the overall view, that all men were created in Gods image. But that still wouldn’t fit the verse above, because it’s saying Jesus is The Son of the invisible God…?


Yes, we are created in God's image meaning we are created in our own image. You are created by what you see, which is the image of God. Without that image you do not exist or are blind and there is only darkness. Without your image there is no light, literally.

I'm not sure how it wouldn't fit with the verse above. The Son is the image, God is the Spirit which is invisible and gives rise to the image or Son. The Spirit regulates your heartbeat and breathing, it is what gives you life. The Son is what controls everything else, it is the mind of the Spirit, a.k.a. you.



Of course, where all sons as well, but where already in agreement on that aspect. But Jesus is being singled out for a reason, and He’s clearly described in the Gnostic texts as being The Son of God, either the true Gnosis got corrupted, or they somehow got it right!


The Gnostics got it right, Jesus was the Son of God because he spread the truth, he made others the Son as well through gnosis. Jesus is a placeholder name for what we all are when we reach gnosis, which is the Son of God, the image of God. It's like calling a great QB "the next Peyton Manning", is Peyton Manning the only QB? No, it is just that he is a great example of a QB that anyone can be if they want to be. Anyone can be as good as Peyton Manning if they put the work in, the same goes for Jesus, he was the Peyton Manning of the spiritual world at that time.



If He's just a son like us, He shouldn't be exalted above the heavens…should he…?


What makes you think Jesus is the only one who can be exalted? If you understand his message fully then you too are exalted along with him. Love others and speak the truth and you are exalted.



When you understand the meaning behind this verse above, and the rest of it, you will realize why Jesus refers to himself as the Vine in John 15!


The passage you quoted says that "after him no other son exists" and "after him no one exists". You say that we came "after" him and that we are sons "other" than him. There is a clear contradiction here between what you are saying and what the passage you quoted says.

There are no other sons besides him because we all are the Son of God, and there is no other. The image of God is the Son of God; we are the image meaning we are the Son that no other exists apart from.

Jesus is only one vine within a garden full of vines. What good is a gardener (Father) if he only plants one vine? A good gardener (Father) plants many vines and keeps them all watered.

We've had this conversation before about Jesus being the true vine and you ended up saying that I was right in the end. Jesus is not the only vine to ever exist, he is but one among many that have come to spread the truth, Buddha being a great example of another true vine.



And like I was saying earlier, Jesus is the highest limited form, of the Father, which is why He is the first Son of God!


I agree, but you make it sound as though no one else can reach that form. If so, you are putting Jesus on a pedestal, something Christians make the mistake of all the time.

ETA: Don't take this as me attacking you, I'm not attacking you I am just pointing out where I think flaws within your theology are. I still consider you a brother.

edit on 2/11/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/11/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

Which is why Jesus says in John 14:20, that we will be in Him (Son) and the Father, on that day, we receive the Spirit of God.
"On that day" would be when we are resurrected.
Jesus says that we will live because he lives.
On that day we will know it by the fact that we are alive rather than dead.

He’s the Word in the beginning, with God the Father. And all things were created through the Son and the Father.
I realize that a lot of people think that is the right way to understand that verse in John 1, but there isn't any indication in the Greek text that it should be understood as meaning Jesus is supposed to be who was being talked about in the mentions of the Logos.
The article can be translated as he or this or that, so it doesn't necessarily have to be a reference to a person.
It traditionally gets translated that way in order to be useful as a "proof text" to back up the doctrine of the Trinity.
edit on 11-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So if the beginning is where the end is, what does the end signify and what is it the end of?

IMO the beginning of this life was the end of your past life, hence the beginning being where the end is. Life is a continuous flow of information and light, it never ends and never begins, even before and after this incarnation.

Those who stand at the beginning also stand at the end, "in the beginning" is also "in the end". How can the end and beginning be the same thing? Because eternity is both the beginning and end, the alpha and omega. Life is eternal, you cannot inherit eternal life if you have a starting point because eternity has no start or end. You had no starting point because even the starting point of this life was the end of another past life.


The beginning and the end verse, is really just talking about the infinite Father. If you merge with the Father, you will cease to exist IMO…And you only had a starting point, from outside the Father. That starting point, has not lasted an infinite amount of time.

Eternity and the Father existed, but I didn’t, until I was created. Once I was created, I then became a part of the eternal.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So you agree that you have had past lives? If so, you weren't created in this incarnation but have had many lives before this one. This is what Jesus means by "came into being before coming into being", even in a past life you came into being before coming into being, and that applies to any previous life you lived back to eternity. No matter how many lives you go back, you came into being before coming into being, which means eternity in either direction, past or future lives.


Totally agree about the past life's, except I didn’t exist into eternity, because IMO I had a starting point i.e. I was created somewhere along the line…



Originally posted by Joecroft
The Word being the light of men, is referring to Jesus bringing the truth to men. Light is a metaphor for truth. I think that’s the general Christian interpretation of that verse.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
But Christian interpretation is usually mostly wrong or at least only half right. The light of man is the image you see. Do you disagree that the image you see is full of light?


I like your idea actually, but I’m not sure what to make of it because, I’ve never heard it before. For me, Light just always meant truth.

The verses in Matthew 6, could also be a metaphor for having the truth within you. When your eye searches for knowledge and understanding of God, the eye, or pineal gland, starts to become full of light and/or truth. Which funnily enough, is exactly what happened to me!



Originally posted by Joecroft
But from Genesis, there is the overall view, that all men were created in Gods image. But that still wouldn’t fit the verse above, because it’s saying Jesus is The Son of the invisible God…?




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Yes, we are created in God's image meaning we are created in our own image. You are created by what you see, which is the image of God. Without that image you do not exist or are blind and there is only darkness. Without your image there is no light, literally.

I'm not sure how it wouldn't fit with the verse above. The Son is the image, God is the Spirit which is invisible and gives rise to the image or Son. The Spirit regulates your heartbeat and breathing, it is what gives you life. The Son is what controls everything else, it is the mind of the Spirit, a.k.a. you.


When I say it wouldn’t fit, I mean from the standard perspective of Christianity, with Jesus being said to be the image of the invisible God. But like you said, if the verses were latter corrupted, then your idea could fit.



Originally posted by Joecroft
Of course, where all sons as well, but where already in agreement on that aspect. But Jesus is being singled out for a reason, and He’s clearly described in the Gnostic texts as being The Son of God, either the true Gnosis got corrupted, or they somehow got it right!





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Gnostics got it right, Jesus was the Son of God because he spread the truth, he made others the Son as well through gnosis. Jesus is a placeholder name for what we all are when we reach gnosis, which is the Son of God, the image of God. It's like calling a great QB "the next Peyton Manning", is Peyton Manning the only QB? No, it is just that he is a great example of a QB that anyone can be if they want to be. Anyone can be as good as Peyton Manning if they put the work in, the same goes for Jesus, he was the Peyton Manning of the spiritual world at that time.


So you think the Gnostic texts are just honouring Jesus, because He was great bringer of the Gnosis…?

To me, it’s seems like there going way beyond, just calling him a great QB lol…just my observations…



Originally posted by Joecroft
If He's just a son like us, He shouldn't be exalted above the heavens…should he…?





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What makes you think Jesus is the only one who can be exalted? If you understand his message fully then you too are exalted along with him. Love others and speak the truth and you are exalted.


Exalted over the Heavens, and stating he’s from a priest hood that existed eons and eons ago, seems a bit heavy to me…maybe it’s just me!



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
We've had this conversation before about Jesus being the true vine and you ended up saying that I was right in the end. Jesus is not the only vine to ever exist, he is but one among many that have come to spread the truth, Buddha being a great example of another true vine.


I never said you were right, I stuck to my guns; Go back and check my, “seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven” thread…we actually, agreed to disagree.

Nice try though…lol



Originally posted by Joecroft
When you understand the meaning behind this verse above, and the rest of it, you will realize why Jesus refers to himself as the Vine in John 15!





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The passage you quoted says that "after him no other son exists" and "after him no one exists". You say that we came "after" him and that we are sons "other" than him. There is a clear contradiction here between what you are saying and what the passage you quoted says.


I know what it says, and there is an apparent contradiction, but there is no contradiction!!!, that’s why I said try to understand all of it, first. If you keep reading it, and try to understand it…you might see it…

Ok, what the heck, I’ll try to break it down, for you, piece by piece…




The Tripartite Tractate
Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in
the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists
before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.



The verses above are in the context of taking about Jesus Being the first and only Son of God.

And then further down, as you rightly pointed out, it states “after him no other son exists”, which appears, at first glance, to be a contradiction, but it’s not!, because what it really means, is that the Father created an only Son (Jesus), and then through Jesus, and the Father, all other sons were made. As you will soon see, in the next bit, further down.




The Tripartite Tractate
Not only did the Son exist from the beginning, but the Church, too, existed from the beginning. Now, he who thinks that the discovery that the Son is an only son opposes the statement (about the Church) because of the mysterious quality of the matter, it is not so. For just as the Father is a unity, and has revealed himself as Father for him alone, so too the Son was found to be a brother to himself alone, in virtue of the fact that he is unbegotten and without beginning.



The above verses are clearing up the contradiction a little, as to how there can be other sons; but it still leaves a bit of puzzle, as to how clear up the verses further up, which stated, “after Him, no other sons exists etc…”…so how can this contradiction be cleared up…Well, we will see further down……




The Tripartite Tractate
He wonders at himself, along with the Father, and he gives him(self) glory and honor and love. Furthermore, he too is the one whom he conceives of as Son, in accordance with the dispositions: "without beginning" and "without end."
Thus is the matter something which is fixed. Being innumerable and illimitable, his offspring are indivisible. Those which exist have come forth from the Son and the Father like kisses, because of the multitude of some who kiss one another with a good, insatiable thought, the kiss being a unity, although it involves many kisses.



The verse I’ve highlighted above clears it all up. What it’s saying, is that other sons come forth, from The Son of God, (Jesus) and the Father.

This is the only thing, which can clear up, the apparent contradiction, (unless you can see another way…?) and is why, there is only one Son of God, while also having other (many) sons of God.



Originally posted by Joecroft
And like I was saying earlier, Jesus is the highest limited form, of the Father, which is why He is the first Son of God!





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I agree, but you make it sound as though no one else can reach that form. If so, you are putting Jesus on a pedestal, something Christians make the mistake of all the time.


Thanks, but I don’t think you realize what you’re agreeing to…lol

No one else can!

That’s why He’s Gods only Son. All other sons, were created through Jesus, and the Father. That’s why the other sons of God (us), are not the same a Jesus, but only in that one aspect, are they/we different. This is why Jesus is also the vine in John 15!



Originally posted by Joecroft
ETA: Don't take this as me attacking you, I'm not attacking you I am just pointing out where I think flaws within your theology are. I still consider you a brother.


Thanks…

But it’s ok, I don’t see it as you attacking me, at all. In fact, I value your the input. Plus, I’m not looking to win a debate here, I’m only looking for the truth. That’s how it’s been since day one for me, on this website, and that’s how it’s going stay.

Anyway, we seem to share a Lot of the same beliefs, which isn’t really going to change, anytime soon.

What can I say; you speak truth, and put your heart and soul into it…I’ feel honoured, to call you a brother.


- JC



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 




The beginning and the end verse, is really just talking about the infinite Father. If you merge with the Father, you will cease to exist IMO…And you only had a starting point, from outside the Father. That starting point, has not lasted an infinite amount of time.

Eternity and the Father existed, but I didn’t, until I was created. Once I was created, I then became a part of the eternal.


If merging with the Father means you cease to exist then why did Jesus (who definitely existed) say that he and the Father were One? Being One with the Father is to merge with him wouldn't you say?

If you believe you had a starting point then you did not come into being before coming into being. To come into being is to start correct? So from what Jesus says, your start was not the start because you started before you started!




Totally agree about the past life's, except I didn’t exist into eternity, because IMO I had a starting point i.e. I was created somewhere along the line…


But this would mean that you didn't come into being before coming into being, in which case Jesus is not congratulating you.



I like your idea actually, but I’m not sure what to make of it because, I’ve never heard it before. For me, Light just always meant truth.

The verses in Matthew 6, could also be a metaphor for having the truth within you. When your eye searches for knowledge and understanding of God, the eye, or pineal gland, starts to become full of light and/or truth. Which funnily enough, is exactly what happened to me!


But why is truth considered to be "light"? What is light without the image of light that you see? Without your image there would be no light and therefore no truth. The only true light is the image that you see, hence light being the truth.



When I say it wouldn’t fit, I mean from the standard perspective of Christianity, with Jesus being said to be the image of the invisible God. But like you said, if the verses were latter corrupted, then your idea could fit.


What verses were later corrupted? The verse about the Son being the image of the invisible God? The verse was not changed or corrupted, only the interpretation of it through church doctrine.

Just as you say Jesus' sacrifice is misinterpreted, so is the verse about the Son being the image. The words were kept the same, the meaning of those words is what was corrupted.



So you think the Gnostic texts are just honouring Jesus, because He was great bringer of the Gnosis…?

To me, it’s seems like there going way beyond, just calling him a great QB lol…just my observations…


How are the Gnostics words about Jesus any different than the words of Buddhists about Buddha?

Would you say that the Buddha spoke the truth? The truth is what is exalted, Jesus was only a messenger of the truth just as Buddha was and the Gnostics honor Jesus in the same way Buddhists honor the Buddha IMO.

They were both great teachers and both One with the Father, both teachers of truth and both the Son of God.




Exalted over the Heavens, and stating he’s from a priest hood that existed eons and eons ago, seems a bit heavy to me…maybe it’s just me!


Key word "priesthood", meaning more than one. It is not a "priesthood" if there is only one priest. The use of the word priesthood implies that there is more than one priest.



I never said you were right, I stuck to my guns; Go back and check my, “seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven” thread…we actually, agreed to disagree.

Nice try though…lol


I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on you, I just specifically remember you saying that I "proved the vine part wrong". I'll have to browse through the thread again to find it.



And then further down, as you rightly pointed out, it states “after him no other son exists”, which appears, at first glance, to be a contradiction, but it’s not!, because what it really means, is that the Father created an only Son (Jesus), and then through Jesus, and the Father, all other sons were made. As you will soon see, in the next bit, further down.


The above verses are clearing up the contradiction a little, as to how there can be other sons; but it still leaves a bit of puzzle, as to how clear up the verses further up, which stated, “after Him, no other sons exists etc…”…so how can this contradiction be cleared up…Well, we will see further down……


Let's take another look at those passages you quoted and find the meaning behind the supposed contradiction.

This part caught my eye from the first quote:



so too the Son was found to be a brother to himself alone


It says that the one Son was a brother to himself alone. How can the Son be a brother to himself? Through us, the Son of God. We are the Son and the Son is a brother to himself, meaning the Son is many but One, as we will see below in a verse from your third quote.



Being innumerable and illimitable, his offspring are indivisible.


Here it says that the Son (who is a brother to himself) is innumerable, meaning many, but his offspring (us/brothers) are indivisible, meaning One.

Here is the part that you bolded, as well as the part afterward.



Those which exist have come forth from the Son and the Father like kisses, because of the multitude of some who kiss one another with a good, insatiable thought, the kiss being a unity, although it involves many kisses.


Here it equates "those that exist" (us) with kisses, then goes on to say that the kisses are a unity even though they involve many kisses. How can many kisses be one kiss? By the fact that the Son is a brother to himself, meaning the innumerable, indivisible brothers (us) are the Son as well.

How the unity (Son) can be many (brothers) is the "mysterious quality of the matter" spoken of in your second quote.



Thanks, but I don’t think you realize what you’re agreeing to…lol

No one else can!

That’s why He’s Gods only Son. All other sons, were created through Jesus, and the Father. That’s why the other sons of God (us), are not the same a Jesus, but only in that one aspect, are they/we different. This is why Jesus is also the vine in John 15!


No one can? Not even you?

I know exactly what I'm agreeing to, which is that anyone can reach this form by becoming a fruit of Jesus' vine that contains seeds with the information to form another vine of their own which will bear its own fruit with the information to create yet another vine and on down the line.

Yes, there is only one Son, but that Son can be many, hence him being a brother to himself as the Gnostics put it.



What can I say; you speak truth, and put your heart and soul into it…I’ feel honoured, to call you a brother.


Same here brother. We are proof that the Son can be a brother to himself.


Sorry, I had to throw that in there.

edit on 2/12/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Here's the post I was talking about with the vine:



So even, if you refuted the vine verse in John 15, there are like another 50 to 100 verses, maybe more (in and outside of the Bible) which are all pointing towards that same truth.


And the link:

LINK


Now that I re-read it though, I may have been taking it out of context. You may have been saying "IF" I refuted it, not that I actually did (though I feel I did
).

edit on 2/12/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Now that I have reread the passages you quoted, I believe you are misunderstanding what they say.



Now, he who thinks that the discovery that the Son is an only son opposes the statement (about the Church) because of the mysterious quality of the matter, it is not so.


This not saying that the Son is not alone, it is actually reinforcing the fact that the Son is alone and that there is no other son after him.

It is saying that "the Son is an only son" (the discovery) does not contradict or oppose the statement about the Church being from the beginning as well.



Not only did the Son exist from the beginning, but the Church, too, existed from the beginning.


It is actually reinforcing my thesis that the Son is One but split into many brothers (or the Church), a.k.a. the Son being a brother to himself. It is not saying there are other sons, it is saying the Son is a brother to himself by being split into many, the many is referred to as the Church in this instance. The "Church" is another way of saying the Son is a brother to himself because the Son is many (Church) brothers.



Furthermore, he too is the one whom he conceives of as Son


This is saying that the Son conceives "of" himself to be a brother to himself. The Son is a brother to himself in the same way that you and I are brothers. We are brothers to ourselves because we are both the Son of God, the One who is innumerable but indivisible.



Thus is the matter something which is fixed. Being innumerable and illimitable, his offspring are indivisible.


The Son's offspring are the brothers or "Church". Since the Son is a brother to himself, that means that the Church is the Son split into innumerable but indivisible brothers.

It may be complicated to follow, but that's what is being said here IMO. You may have to read it over again, but the meaning is there.



ETA: I have just read a bit of the Tripartite Tractate and have found a perfect reference to what I am trying to describe.



The one whom he raised up as a light for those who came from himself, the one from whom they take their name, he is the Son, who is full, complete and faultless. He brought him forth mingled with what came forth from him [...] partaking of the [...] the Totality, in accordance with [...] by which each one can receive him for himself, though such was not his greatness before he was received by it. Rather, he exists by himself. As for the parts in which he exists in his own manner and form and greatness, it is possible for to see him and speak about that which they know of him, since they wear him while he wears them, because it is possible for them to comprehend him.


The "parts" that the Son exists in is the Church, or the "many brothers", a.k.a. us. We wear him (the image) while he wears us (the body). But the image is still us as are our bodies, we are both.

The body "wears" the image because the body is created within the image. The image "wears" the body because the image is housed within each individual body.

Each person has their own unique perspective of the image meaning their image wears their body and their body wears their image by their body being created in the image.



Thank you for pointing this book out to me, I've never heard of it but I can relate to it a lot. I will spend the next few days reading through it and may create a thread based on t with my own interpretation.
edit on 2/12/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I believe that Genesis 1:1 is actually speaking of this process, and its the only sacrifice that God ever desired, the one at the foundation of the world. It is the very dividing of himself.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, is the english translation usually. The word order is different, and there are other definitions possible for the words in Hebrew. There are 7 words in vs. 1 in this order:

The Firstfruits (The head, Crown) -- Birthed (Carved Out) -- Elohim -- Aleph Tau (Alpha Omega) --Heavens-- A-T-- Earth

In the Beginning
1) re shiyth

1) first, beginning, best, chief
1a) beginning
1b) first
1c) chief
1d) choice part
from the same as 7218; the first, in place, time, order or
rank (specifically, a firstfruit):-beginning, chief(-est),
first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing


Created
2) bara

1) to create, shape, form
1b2) of birth
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

The cutting down is like cutting a Branch off: see TWOT link on NetBible page for bara. This is the sacrifice the cutting down of himself, a carving out or creating a chaos in the midst of Himself, that birthed "another". The first fruit, or head "He is the firstborn over all creation".

3) Elohim (God, gods, pretty self explanatory)

4) Aleph-Tau This word is untranslated, but it is the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The greek version is Alpha-Omega. Beginning and end. " I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end"

5) Shamayim (heavens, mind of Christ, Spirit)

6) Aleph-Tau (link between)

7) Erets (Earth, physical)

The first fruits born God (or out of God) is the alpha and omega the link between heaven and earth



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Jesus' death was more than just an attempt to spread the truth so that we all might be saved. To summarize it in a nutshell...

Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Here are other scriptures that might help to show that Jesus' blood was part of God's Covenant. Here is a great link to understanding the different Covenants in the Bible and how they were made.

www.gci.org...

Here are some particular verses that help us to understand...

Hebrews 9:15- 18 - 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Exodus 24:8 - And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Ezekiel 16:60 - Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If merging with the Father means you cease to exist then why did Jesus (who definitely existed) say that he and the Father were One? Being One with the Father is to merge with him wouldn't you say?


Jesus said He was one with the Father, because where all spiritually connected to the Father. But IMO when you completely merge with the Father, you will cease to be yourself.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If you believe you had a starting point then you did not come into being before coming into being. To come into being is to start correct? So from what Jesus says, your start was not the start because you started before you started!
But this would mean that you didn't come into being before coming into being, in which case Jesus is not congratulating you.


The coming into being, before coming into being, is just talking about past lives, which IMO had a starting point.

The other aspect of it, is just highlighting the Father, who is eternal.



Originally posted by Joecroft
When I say it wouldn’t fit, I mean from the standard perspective of Christianity, with Jesus being said to be the image of the invisible God. But like you said, if the verses were latter corrupted, then your idea could fit.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What verses were later corrupted? The verse about the Son being the image of the invisible God? The verse was not changed or corrupted, only the interpretation of it through church doctrine.

Just as you say Jesus' sacrifice is misinterpreted, so is the verse about the Son being the image. The words were kept the same, the meaning of those words is what was corrupted.


Oh right I see, I was factoring in the possibility that you thought the verses might have become corrupted, in some way. But I can see now, that you meant the verse was uncorrupted, and that just the meaning of it, via church doctrine, was changed.

But anyway, like I was saying, your interpretation could fit, assuming it’s the right interpretation, and assuming they changed the meaning of it, to fit church doctrine etc…




Originally posted by Joecroft
So you think the Gnostic texts are just honouring Jesus, because He was great bringer of the Gnosis…?

To me, it’s seems like there going way beyond, just calling him a great QB lol…just my observations…





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
How are the Gnostics words about Jesus any different than the words of Buddhists about Buddha?

Would you say that the Buddha spoke the truth? The truth is what is exalted, Jesus was only a messenger of the truth just as Buddha was and the Gnostics honor Jesus in the same way Buddhists honor the Buddha IMO.

They were both great teachers and both One with the Father, both teachers of truth and both the Son of God.


Please understand I completely get where your coming from. Buddha was a great teacher IMO

And to me, Jesus is a great teacher, as well, because he teaches about God, but I also believe He is The Son of God.

Anyway, I think I’m just going to try and described, how/why I believe Jesus is, The Son of God, in my next post.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Key word "priesthood", meaning more than one. It is not a "priesthood" if there is only one priest. The use of the word priesthood implies that there is more than one priest.


Yeah, but the other verses, state He’s the only son, which means, He’s at the head/start, of that priesthood.

Continued…



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



Continued…



Originally posted by Joecroft
I never said you were right, I stuck to my guns; Go back and check my, “seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven” thread…we actually, agreed to disagree.

Nice try though…lol





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on you, I just specifically remember you saying that I "proved the vine part wrong". I'll have to browse through the thread again to find it.


I only meant (if) you proved that part wrong, because there are still many other verses, which point towards the same truth.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1



Joecroft
So even, if you refuted the vine verse in John 15, there are like another 50 to 100 verses, maybe more (in and outside of the Bible) which are all pointing towards that same truth.


And the link:

LINK

Now that I re-read it though, I may have been taking it out of context. You may have been saying "IF" I refuted it, not that I actually did (though I feel I did
).


Great, I see you found my post, which confirmed what I said above…

It was probably one of those, “Did I just refuted one of Joe Crofts posts” moments, and then the reality check kicked in… lol

You gota control those feelings…lol



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Let's take another look at those passages you quoted and find the meaning behind the supposed contradiction.

This part caught my eye from the first quote:


I appreciate everything you wrote above, I edited it out just to save space.

If we can just go back a few posts ago, your original question, was this below…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Is there a Gnostic writing that explicitly distinguishes the Son of God from a son of God?


And then I showed this verse below, which I believe shows just that difference…




The Tripartite Tractate
Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.



What I’m driving at, is that you still need provide an answer, as to why the verse above states “no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him”…???

It’s talking about no sons coming after,…and as far as I can see, there’s only one solution to that problem.

This goes for your other post breakdown, of the “The Tripartite Tractate” as well, because what you have shown, and which I agree with, is that where all pieces, but IMO where all pieces, that came out of, The Son and the Father…but I think you should wait, to see my follow up post, on how I see Jesus. Just so I can make it clearer.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Thank you for pointing this book out to me, I've never heard of it but I can relate to it a lot. I will spend the next few days reading through it and may create a thread based on t with my own interpretation.


Yeah, it’s amazing book especially, the descriptions of the Father, you might want to compare it with the “Gospel of Truth”.

Take your time reading it, it’s quite a complex book; I look forward to seeing your thread on it.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
No one can? Not even you?

I know exactly what I'm agreeing to, which is that anyone can reach this form by becoming a fruit of Jesus' vine that contains seeds with the information to form another vine of their own which will bear its own fruit with the information to create yet another vine and on down the line.

Yes, there is only one Son, but that Son can be many, hence him being a brother to himself as the Gnostics put it.


I’m not sure if you understand, how I’m describing Jesus when you agreed above. Not your fault, I should have described it better. I’ll try and explain it, in more detail, in my next post…



Originally posted by Joecroft
What can I say; you speak truth, and put your heart and soul into it…I’ feel honoured, to call you a brother.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Same here brother. We are proof that the Son can be a brother to himself.

Sorry, I had to throw that in there.


That was funny…

But surely the First Son, had no brothers, until… lol


(Ok, I’m going to described, Jesus, as The Son of God, in my next post, hopefully that will make it clearer)


- JC



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 



I’ll try to explain this, as best as I can. Hopefully this will make my position clearer.

The Father created the Frist Son of God. But we’ll not use the word Son for now, because it makes it more confusing.

The Father created the first aspect of Himself…i.e. Jesus. Which means, Jesus is God, but He’s just not the Father. Jesus is like the Fathers guiding avatar. Jesus is the highest limited form, of the Father, which in a sense, makes him, for all intense and purposes, God. The Father and God (Jesus) created all other sons of God.

This is why those verses in the “The Tripartite Tractate” state there were no other sons, before him or after him, because all other sons, were created by the Father, and God (Jesus) together. The verse also states that, The Son of God (Jesus) exists in the proper sense. In other words, as an actual entity that exists.

This is also why He’s referred to as the first and only Son of God, because the Father birthed Him first. All other sons, were created by the Father and God, (Jesus)…

It’s only because of the nature of how creation is structured, that The Father created Jesus (the Son) to be His highest limited aspect of himself (hence, in the beginning was the Word), and then Father/Jesus created everything else.

It’s why He says, “I and the Father are one.”

Its why He says, the Father is the gardener, and He is the Vine and we are the branches.

It’s why that, “The Tripartite Tractate” verse states, “the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists.”

It’s why He says, there are 2 witnesses, that testify to the Gods truth.

It’s why He says, He was “set a part.”

It’s why he’s called, chief commander of THE ALL, in the Gnostic text Melchizedek.

It’s why He says, “you will do greater things than these, because I am going to the Father

It’s why He says “Whoever believes in me, believes not only in me, but also in the one who sent me.”

It’s why He says “no one comes to Father, except through Me

And It’s why He says “we will come to you” on that day, in John 14:23…

I can go on, and on…

Do you at least understand, what I’m trying to say…even if you disagree with it…?


- JC

edit on 12-2-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Yes, I understand what you mean, but I also disagree with it. I think you are misunderstanding the concept that it is trying to convey because you have the notion that Jesus (the man) "has" to be the Son and him alone.

What do you have to say about the Son being an only son? That means that there are no sons after him and the Tractate itself says so very clearly. It reiterates this fact numerous times as well, that there is no other but the Son.

What is the Church in your opinion that existed at the beginning along with the Son? The Tractate describes it as the "parts" that the Son fully exists within.

How can the Son exist in "parts" if there is only One Son who is Jesus alone as you say?

What does it mean by the Son being a brother to himself alone and creating offspring "of" himself? This points toward the offspring (us) being the Son as well because we are the offspring "of" ourselves.

In my opinion, all of these things point toward the One Son inhabiting many "parts", and these "parts" are innumerable but indivisible as the book says. Innumerable in the way that the Son inhabits these innumerable "parts" and indivisible in the way that the Son is alone with no other besides him. How is this possible? It is a mystery as the book says, but also a factual mystery.

What does it mean by the Son wearing the "parts" and the "parts" wearing the Son? This "loop" for lack of a better term implies that the parts are the Son and the Son is the parts.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 





Originally posted by Deetermined
Hebrews 9:15- 18 - 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


All those verses stem from a misunderstanding of the word “blood”, and in turn that misunderstanding, created a incorrect theology around sacrifice IMO...



Originally posted by Deetermined
Exodus 24:8 - And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Ezekiel 16:60 - Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.


Like I was saying to another poster, there is a huge dichotomy around sacrifices and offerings, within the Old Testament.

Here’s just one example…




Proverb 21:2-3
2 All a man’s ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
3 To do what is right and just
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.






Originally posted by Deetermined
Jesus' death was more than just an attempt to spread the truth so that we all might be saved. To summarize it in a nutshell...

Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


The predominant translation of Luke 22:20, is that it his blood which is “poured” out. “Poured” being the key word, and is an important distinction…





NIV
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.



And again the same applies to the verse Matthew 26:28, it’s his blood which is “poured” out. “Poured” being the key word, again.




NIV
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



The difference is quite important, and here’s why…

In the last supper scene, Jesus is holding a cup of wine, and stating that “this is my blood” etc…




Matthew 26:27-29
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”



I personally believe that standard Christianity was derived from Gnostic Christianity. Jesus speaks many coded and symbolic words, which are found in Gnosticism, and they all have different key meanings. Most of them, we are aware of, like for example, when Jesus talks about “fruit”, It’s common knowledge, and everyone knows, that Jesus is not talking about literal fruits.

I think the early church, didn’t understand Jesus usage of the word “blood”, and unfortunately turned it into a literal interpretation. They simply weren't aware of real gnostic symbolic meaning behind it.

In the Old Testament, wine is a symbol for wisdom, especially in many verses found in Proverbs. There are also verses in the OT which state that the spirit, of an animal, is contained within its blood.

Blood is both symbolic of Wine and Spirit, and wine represents Wisdom. The Holy Spirit is the bringer of Wisdom, which is how those 2 things are connected. In 1 Corinthians, verse 12:8, Wisdom is the first gift, of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in that chapter.


The Gnostic texts, clearly show that the word blood, wasn’t meant to be taken literally, and that it had a different meaning.

For example…




The Gnostic “Gospel of Philip”
Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit.



And another example, from the Gospel of Philip




Gospel of Philip
The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body. It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.



And further evidence, of how the Gnostics viewed the word “blood”




From “The Gnostic Catechism”

182. How can the spiritual (PNEUMATIC) body and blood of Christ take on the appearance of the bread and wine?
Through the sacred phenomenon of Transubstantiation or Transelementation, which is brought about by the Holy Spirit.




As you can see, what these verses show, is that the symbolic meaning behind the word “blood”, really means “Holy Spirit.”

This is why the translation of the word “poured”, in those verses above, is important, because its really the Holy Spirit which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

And we only learn how to receive the Holy Spirit, by coming to know God, through Jesus message. Which ultimately means, it’s Jesus message which saves, and not his death.


- JC



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I also agree with your POV. "Just as Christ is, so are you in the world". And the fact that in John 17 Jesus says that we have the same love from the Father, the love that is from the foundation of the world.

I think the disagreement between you and Joe is in viewpoint. We are one with the Father, but just as in the story of the garden, when Adam was put to sleep and a rib was taken out of his side, and a "separate one" was created, but is still "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh", so we as the bride are still "separate". In the same way we as soul-ish creatures are separated from the life giving Spirit. Though that separation is only the veil of our mind [Col 1:21, sorry I know you don't "like Paul"
] I don't see that Jesus the man is the firstborn, or first fruits any more than we are, but that the divine Logos is, which is male and female. But Jesus the man was murdered, but out of his blood flowed the new creation, his bride.

1 Corinthians 15 speaks of the man of heaven and the man of earth. And it says "the first man adam became a living soul, the last man Christ became a life giving spirit" In my last post I chopped up Gen 1:1, and pointed to the nature of creating, being carving out or cutting down. (Kind of interesting that to cleave is to come together, but a cleaver is to cut apart)

So we have the same repeating pattern. the --> is the cutting down/carving/birthing

Oneness--> Father-Logos

Logos--> Heavens(Spirit)-Earth(Soul)

Adam(male and female) --> Adam-Eve

Jesus--> Bridegroom-Bride

I'm not sure why you don't like Paul, and my intent isn't to cheer on Paul, but I think one of the things that people don't like about Paul is the whole "wives be subjected to your husbands".

That verse is terribly misunderstood IMO. Why do I think that? 1 Corinthians 15:27

For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

The subjection is not a negative thing but is akin to cleaving, it is gathering together the male and the female that were separated

Wives to husband (husband is 'head' of wife)
Creation to the Son (son is 'head' over creation)
Son to Father (Father is 'head' over son)

! Cor 15 is the reversal of the separation, the gathering in of the All in All.

Now Jesus is also called the firstborn of many brethren. And also remember it said the last man became a life giving spirit. In that sense I believe Jesus the man was the first and chief, and whose name is elevated above others, as the pioneer, the elder brother that shows us the way. How? When the veil is removed then we can see face to face, and be known as we are known.

Then we can say "And we all with unveiled faces are reflecting the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being transformed/transfigured into His likeness" The subjection is the unveiling.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zardust
 




But Jesus the man was murdered, but out of his blood flowed the new creation, his bride.


I disagree with you here. If the Church or "Bride" in the bible is the same Church in the Gnostic texts and the Gnostic texts are true, that would mean the Bride or Church was there at the beginning with the Son, it wasn't created when Jesus died on the cross because that would mean it wasn't with the Son at the beginning, it was created afterward.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 





Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Yes, I understand what you mean, but I also disagree with it. I think you are misunderstanding the concept that it is trying to convey because you have the notion that Jesus (the man) "has" to be the Son and him alone.


No, not Jesus (the man), Jesus the spiritual entity, who was the Word in the beginning with the Father. Jesus is God, he’s just not the Father.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What do you have to say about the Son being an only son? That means that there are no sons after him and the Tractate itself says so very clearly.
It reiterates this fact numerous times as well, that there is no other but the Son.


Yeah, that’s the dilemma that you need to try to focus on, and find a solution too…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
How can the Son exist in "parts" if there is only One Son who is Jesus alone as you say?


That’s not what I say, that’s what the verses say lol

Here it is again…




The Tripartite Tractate
Just as the Father exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no one else, and the one apart from whom there is no other unbegotten one, so too the Son exists in the proper sense, the one before whom there was no other, and after whom no other son exists. Therefore, he is a firstborn and an only Son, "firstborn" because no one exists before him and "only Son" because no one is after him.



I know it looks likes a contradiction. But hey, I didn’t write the, “Tripartite Tractate” lol I only tried to decipher it…

My solution to it, is that Jesus was Gods first creation, so, He’s the only son of His type, if that make sense. So when it says there were no sons after him, IMO it means no others sons LIKE him. The reason being, that the first son Jesus was created by the Father; and all other sons, were created by Both Father+Jesus, and therefore they aren’t the same as Jesus, hence, “no others like him“ etc… hope that makes sense.

Anyway, that’s my own solution to the problem in those verses. I’m open to suggestions. But the thing is, it fits other descriptions of Jesus as well.

But remember Jesus is really Gods avatar, and when we start to bring the word “son” into the equation, its kind of clouds the understanding slightly. But of course that’s the descriptive method being used, to describe Jesus, in the “The Tripartite Tractate.”


Anyway, you’ve only just discovered the book “The Tripartite Tractate”. You should give your self a bit more time, to absorb all the verses. I’m certainly not expecting you to know everything about it, off the bat.




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What is the Church in your opinion that existed at the beginning along with the Son? The Tractate describes it as the "parts" that the Son fully exists within.



Yeah, its like the “Father within”, has gone from “the Father and the First son within”; within the other sons, at least that how it looks to me…

It’s, pointing out this first son, being there first, and then it’s says the church, was their too, and by church I’m pretty sure it means us. But that would be a contradiction, because the son couldn’t be first, if we were there too at the same time.

So I think it has to mean, the potential new arrivals, of offspring from the first son, and the father i.e. from the beginning and the end…




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What does it mean by the Son being a brother to himself alone and creating offspring "of" himself? This points toward the offspring (us) being the Son as well because we are the offspring "of" ourselves.


Good question. I’m not sure, but I would have to assume that offspring, has to come from a line of a Son, which I guess means, there would have to be the starting point i.e. a first spiritual son…

That line that starts “Those which exist have come forth from the Son and the Father”, is written in the style, as if those that come forth, already exist. Which kind of runs parallel to how the author is describing the Church further up. So I think it really means they come forth i.e. get created, from the Eternal/Father and the Son, because anything else just wouldn’t fit, or make sense IMO…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What does it mean by the Son wearing the "parts" and the "parts" wearing the Son? This "loop" for lack of a better term implies that the parts are the Son and the Son is the parts.


I’m not sure, there are mysteries, that not even I can answer lol

Although, I think this discussion is really the 21st century upgrade, on the Trinity debate, taken to another level.


- JC



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 




No, not Jesus (the man), Jesus the spiritual entity, who was the Word in the beginning with the Father. Jesus is God, he’s just not the Father.


But the Father is God isn't he? So how is Jesus God but not the Father?



Yeah, that’s the dilemma that you need to try to focus on, and find a solution too…


I have found a solution to the dilemma already, you are just not understanding it.



That’s not what I say, that’s what the verses say lol


The verse says that no one is after him and there is no other son but him.

You are saying you are a son but not the Son, that contradicts "no other son exists", and you say that you came after him which contradicts "no one came after him".

There is a clear contradiction here, you are not explaining the contradiction away, you are only furthering it. I have come up with a solution to this supposed contradiction and it agrees with what is written down.



My solution to it, is that Jesus was Gods first creation, so, He’s the only son of His type, if that make sense. So when it says there were no sons after him, IMO it means no others sons LIKE him. The reason being, that the first son Jesus was created by the Father; and all other sons, were created by Both Father+Jesus, and therefore they aren’t the same as Jesus, hence, “no others like him“ etc… hope that makes sense.


But that's not what it says, it says no other son (lowercase used) exists after the Son (uppercase used). You are saying you are a son (lowercase) that came after the Son (uppercase) which fully contradicts what is written.

The passage does not contradict itself, the way you are interpreting it is where the contradiction is coming from. Your interpretation is what is contradicting what is written, what is written does not contradict itself IMO.



Anyway, that’s my own solution to the problem in those verses. I’m open to suggestions. But the thing is, it fits other descriptions of Jesus as well.


I have offered a suggestion that takes the supposed contradiction away, but it seems you are closed to it. No offense brother, but you don't seem to be open to the suggestion that we are the Son as well. If you accept that, the contradiction no longer exists, but since you do not, the contradiction remains.



So I think it has to mean, the potential new arrivals, of offspring from the first son, and the father i.e. from the beginning and the end…


Again, this is not what the passage says, you are changing the meaning in order to suit your interpretation, which is where the contradiction lies as I have explained. Again, no offense, but there is clearly a problem with the way you are interpreting it.



Good question. I’m not sure, but I would have to assume that offspring, has to come from a line of a Son, which I guess means, there would have to be the starting point i.e. a first spiritual son…

That line that starts “Those which exist have come forth from the Son and the Father”, is written in the style, as if those that come forth, already exist. Which kind of runs parallel to how the author is describing the Church further up. So I think it really means they come forth i.e. get created, from the Eternal/Father and the Son, because anything else just wouldn’t fit, or make sense IMO…


The Church is the Son existing in many "parts" or bodies, the Son is a brother to himself in the sense that the indivisible (One) Son exists in an innumerable amount of bodies (parts) at once. The Son is indivisible but the Church is innumerable, yet they are One and the same thing.

This is what it means that the Son is a brother to himself and creates offspring of himself. The brothers and offspring are the Son in many bodies or "parts". Those parts are us, the One Son formed into a Church of many bodies created "of" the Son. Every time someone gives birth to a a baby, that is the Son creating offspring "of" itself.

This explanation clears away any contradiction that may or could appear to exist.



I’m not sure, there are mysteries, that not even I can answer lol

Although, I think this discussion is really the 21st century upgrade, on the Trinity debate, taken to another level.


The parts wearing the Son and the Son wearing the parts is a reference to the image (Son) we see and the bodies (parts) that are within it.

The Son wears the "parts" (bodies) because the image is housed within the body, YOU are housed within your body.

The "parts" (bodies) wear the Son because the bodies you see in your image (Son) are "wearing" the light that you create through your image, which is the Son as the bible states. This also explains what Jesus means by him being in us and us being in him, it is just another way of saying that the parts wear the Son and the Son wears the parts.

The explanation I am giving you perfectly explains what is written and removes any apparent contradiction that may seem to be there. The only thing is, you have to be open to a new view on things, one that does not put Jesus on a pedestal as being THE Son.

The Son is a brother to himself in the way that you are a brother to me, and I do consider you a brother.

edit on 2/12/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


No because it's the same as male and female Adam. They were one from the beginning. The "creation" is only from a finite pov. In the same way the son proceeded from the father but was one from the beginning.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join